Could Lakatos, even with Zahar's criterion for novel fact, evaluate the copernican research programme?
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (2):161-200 (1992)
Why did Copernicus's research programme supersede Ptolemy's?’, Lakatos and Zahar argued that, on Zahar's criterion for ‘novel fact’, Copernican theory was objectively scientifically superior to Ptolemaic theory. They are mistaken, Lakatos and Zahar applied Zahar's criterion to ‘a historical thought-experiment’—fictional rather than real history. Further, in their fictional history, they compared Copernicus to Eudoxus rather than Ptolemy, ignored Tycho Brahe, and did not consider facts that would be novel for geostatic theories. When Zahar's criterion is applied to real history, the results are distinctly different. Finally, most of the historical and conceptual problems in applying Zahar's criterion to the Copernican Revolution primarily arise from a deep difficulty in Lakatos's programme: the necessity of individuating research programmes and identifying their originators. 1 Working closely with David Dahl was crucial in developing this paper. Robert Westman's valiant effort to keep me on the historical straight and narrow drastically limited my tendency to a priori historical pronouncements. The Vassar Philosophy Department, John Tompsich, and Jean Sterling were also helpful.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
E. Glas (2001). The 'Popperian Programme' and Mathematics - Part II: From Quasi-Empiricism to Mathematical Research Programmes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 32 (2):355-376.
Kurt Bayertz (1991). Forschungsprogramm Und Wissenschaftsentwicklung. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22 (2):229 - 243.
Kurt Bayertz (1991). Forschungsprogramm Und WissenschaftsentwicklungResearch Programme and Development of Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22 (2):229-243.
Elie Zahar (1973). Why Did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's? (I). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (2):95-123.
Elie Zahar (1973). Why Did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's? (II). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (3):223-262.
E. G. Zahar (1983). The Popper-Lakatos Controversy in the Light of 'Die Beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 34 (2):149-171.
Colin Howson (ed.) (1976). Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences: The Critical Background to Modern Science, 1800-1905. Cambridge University Press.
I. G. McFetridge (1977). Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery By Imre Lakatos Edited by John Worrall and Elie Zahar Cambridge University Press, 1976, Xii + 174 Pp., £7.50, £1.95 Paper. [REVIEW] Philosophy 52 (201):365-.
Hans Radder (1982). An Immanent Criticism of Lakatos' Account of the 'Degenerating Phase' of Bohr's Atomic Theory. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 13 (1):99-109.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #84,404 of 1,004,733 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,743 of 1,004,733 )
How can I increase my downloads?